Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/10/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB222 | |
| HB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 222(L&C) am
"An Act relating to the licensure of nail technicians;
relating to the practice of manicuring; and providing
for an effective date."
9:27:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon introduced HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, offered a sponsor
statement for the bill (copy on file):
The amended House Labor & Commerce version of House
Bill 222 reverses legislation passed by the 2015
Alaska State Legislature that updated the licensing
requirements for Alaskan manicurists. The enrolled
House Bill 131, which became effective on December
31st, 2015 increased the training requirements to
become a licensed nail technician from 12 theory hours
with no examination to 250 practical and theory hours
with a state board examination. Prior to the passage
of HB 131, manicurists could take 12 hours of
coursework and receive a manicurist's license, or they
could take 250 hours and become an advanced
manicurist. The 2015 legislation eliminated the 12-
hour license and instead required all licensees to
take 250 classroom hours. The updated legislation
negatively impacted practicing nail technicians
seeking license renewal who were now required to take
250 hours off work to take redundant coursework. It
also required all manicurists, including those seeking
license renewal, to take an exam which was only
offered in four languages, creating equal opportunity
issues for individuals who may have difficulties with
language barriers.
House Bill 222 in its original form sought to extend a
grandfather clause allowing individuals who held a
manicurists' license prior to December 2015 to forego
the 250 hours of instruction in manicuring required of
new applicants. They would still be required to prove
250 hours of prior work experience as a manicurist and
take an examination. The original version also allowed
test takers to use foreign language interpreters.
However, the House Finance Committee expressed their
concern with the arbitrary 250 hours required. They
thought this was restrictive and unnecessary for
manicurists. The bill was then amended to remove the
requirements of 250 hours of coursework and an exam
and reverse the statutes to their prior form. The
amended version will once again allow for two types of
licenses; the general manicurists license requiring 12
hours of training, and the advanced manicurist license
requiring 250 hours.
It is the intention of HB 222 is to remove the
unnecessary burden of redundant educational training
hours for experienced manicurists who practiced prior
to December 31st, 2015 and extend equal opportunity to
individuals who may have difficulty with language
barriers.
Representative Claman shared that 832 of the 944 practicing
manicurists in the state could lose their jobs by August
31, 2017 if they could not pass the written test. He
lamented that the unintended job losses would negatively
affect Alaskan families.
9:31:35 AM
Representative Claman relayed that there had been concern
as to whether human trafficking related in any way to the
licenses. He shared that it had been discovered that in the
last month someone had come to the Department of Community,
Commerce, and Economic Development with 50 applications for
the 12-hour license, and that nearly all the applicants had
not physically been in the state; the licenses were
apparently being used in relation to human trafficking
efforts in other states. He said human trafficking had
never not been discussed during the vetting of HB 131. He
asserted that there was not much that could be done in
Alaska to prevent human trafficking in other states,
particularly at the expense of Alaskan jobs. He felt that
the focus should be on the job interests of Alaskans. He
noted that the issue of hairdressers with a manicurist
endorsement would be addressed with an amendment that would
assure that hairdressers that were also doing nail work
would have the manicurist endorsement.
9:33:49 AM
SARA PERMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, reiterated
statements from the sponsor regarding the intent of the
legislation. She addressed the sectional analysis:
Section 1 - Amends AS 08.13.040 [Meetings and Exams]
The Board may not require an exam for an applicant
seeking licensure as a manicurist. However, the Board
may require an exam for a licensed manicurist wishing
to seek an additional optional advanced manicurist
endorsement.
Section 2 - Amends AS 08.13.080(a) [Qualifications of
Applicants] Removes language that all persons applying
to take an exam for manicuring must have successfully
completed 250 hours of instruction from a licensed
school of manicuring. Adds that an instructor in
hairdressing may also be an instructor in manicuring
for health and safety related courses, and that the
Board may establish additional requirements for
manicuring instructors.
Section 3 - Amends AS 08.13.080 - adds new
subsections: (e) An applicant for licensing must
submit 1) proof of certification in 12-hour health and
safety course from Board approved and licensed school,
and 2) pay required fees. (f) An applicant for an
advanced manicurist endorsement must 1) already hold
or be approved for a manicurist license, 2) request
the endorsement, 3) submit documentation of 250-hours
of required coursework from an approved school, 4)
pass the Board approved exam, and 5) pay required
fees.
Section 4 - AmendsASO8.13.100(a) Removes manicuring
from list of licenses that require exams.
Section 5 - Amends AS 08.13.100(d) Provides that
manicurists licensed in another state are entitled to
licenses/endorsements without taking additional
training or exams, given that they can provide proof
of completed training that meets Alaska requirements.
Section 6 - Adds new subsection to AS 08.13.110 d) The
Board shall license a school that offers 12-hour
safety course, but may not license the school if it
requires greater than 12 hours for the safety course
e) Schools may seek approval from the Board for the
curriculum for advanced endorsements. The Board shall
establish curriculum requirements.
Section 7 - Amends AS 08.13.160(d) The licensing
provisions mentioned in this chapter don't apply to
persons actively taking an approved 12-hour course.
Section 8 - Amends AS 08.13.1 75 Licensed manicurists
applying for the 250-hour advanced manicurist
endorsement are entitled to a temporary license while
applying for the exam as long as they are supervised
by a licensed manicurist.
Section 9 - Amends AS 08.13.185(a) Adds initial
licensing and renewals for the endorsement for
advanced manicurist training to fees that may be
collected by DCCED.
Section 10 - Repeals 08.13.082(e) Repeals the
apprenticeship term periods set by the Board.
Section 11 - Repeals Section 13, Ch. 27 SLA 2015
Repeals the grandfather clause set in HB 131:
"allowing a person who holds a valid license on Jan 1,
2016 to continue practicing manicuring until their
license normally expires. Subsection (1) states that a
person is allowed to renew their license before August
31, 2017, if the person meets preexisting requirements
under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to Jan 1, 2016.
Subsection (2) states that a person may renew their
license for an additional period before August 31,
2019 if the person submits (A) proofof250 hours of
satisfactory work experience and (B) has taken and
passed a written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090."
Section 12 - Sets the effective date. Effective
immediately.
9:37:35 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to Section 6. She questioned why
the board would not also license schools for courses
exceeding 12 hours.
Representative Claman felt that the limit was a "curiosity"
about the prior way that the law had been written; however,
that was how the statute that he was seeking to reset had
been written in 2015.
Senator von Imhof understood that the sponsor wanted to
revert to the exact language from the 2015 statute, rather
than rewriting the language to expand the limitations for
licensing.
Representative Claman responded that the bill had been
initially introduced to address the grandfather clause
issue, which had become convoluted, but had been amended in
the house to reset back to prior statute. He shared that
the issue raised by Representative von Imhof had not been
discussed by the house.
9:39:18 AM
Senator Olson queried whether the sponsor would support an
amendment that would allow for courses the exceeded 12
hours.
Representative Claman responded no.
Senator Olson referred to Section 11. He questioned the
reasoning behind repealing the grandfather clause.
Representative Claman stated that the bill would change an
unintended consequence of HB 131 by resetting to the prior
statute. He explained that the bill would repeal the
grandfather clause because the new training requirement in
HB 131 would no longer apply.
9:40:27 AM
Senator Micciche noted that the current version of the bill
had changed considerably from the sponsors original
legislation. He stated that the bill had "morphed" after
going through the legislative process on the house side,
which had eliminated all qualification training.
Representative Claman said that training requirements had
been significantly increased by HB 131. He shared that
constituents had testified to him about the enormity of the
testing requirements and language barriers in the industry.
He relayed that through the process it had become apparent
that the consequences of HB 131 needed to be addressed.
Senator Micciche acknowledged that the purpose of HB 131
was to address the public safety of Alaskans. He thought
that a balance could be struck between the two pieces of
legislation.
9:42:32 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop commented that he was happy to hear that
the sponsor was amiable to amending Section 6.
9:43:21 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the average hours of training
for comparable licensing in other states.
Representative Claman understood that there was a range in
hours and that Alaska was on the lower end of the spectrum.
He understood that 250 hours training was more common in
other states.
Ms. Perman stated that Alaska has the lowest licensing
requirements, 12 hours, and that the next lowest was
Colorado with 20 hours. She said that nationwide there was
an average bracket of 250 and 600 hours.
Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected that the lowest licensing
requirement was in Connecticut; it was zero, and that
Colorado required 600 hours for licensing.
Representative Claman recalled that when he trained to
become an emergency medical technical (EMT), 250 hours of
training was not required to provide lifesaving medical
care. He believed that the required EMT training was
approximately 100 hours in Alaska. He felt that it would be
strange to require more training for a nail technician than
for a person providing lifesaving medical care.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reminded the committee that the bill
pertained to manicurists and the safety of Alaskan
residents. She noted that Alaska was second to last on the
list of required training hours. She expressed concern for
the human trafficking issue being raised in connection with
the industry. She asserted that the intention behind HB 131
had been to protect Alaskans from the consequences of
improperly sanitized manicure equipment, and she questioned
the safety of lowering the training requirements to only 12
hours.
9:47:06 AM
Representative Claman said that the board supported the
legislation, but agreed that it would take further
discussions to determine a more effective way to regulate
the industry for safety without putting manicurists out of
work.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that HB 222 had been
introduced one month previous.
Representative Claman replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the bill had been changed
in each committee of referral.
Representative Claman did not believe so.
9:48:47 AM
Senator von Imhof understood that there was a specific
pending issue that needed to be addressed by August 2017
that had to do with licensing requirements. She wondered
whether there was a way to address that specific issue, and
then find a more appropriate balance between 12 and 250
hours during the interim.
Representative Claman thought the most effective way to
address the issue and protect workers was to pass HB 222.
9:51:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
ED LOPEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, REGAL NAIL SALON & SPA, ANCHOAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He
relayed that for the past two months he had learned about
the impact from the passage of HB 131. He discussed the
requirement for additional training for manicurists. He
opined that the exam required by current law was poorly
written, poorly translated, and did not follow a specific
course of study, which meant that there was no way to
prepare for the exam. He said that most of the specialists
in the industry were Asian, and English was their second
language, which made the exam discriminatory toward the
Asian community in Alaska. He discussed the grandfather
clause, which had been missing from the previous bill. He
noted that there were only three schools in the state at
which technicians could acquire the newly required
training. He predicted that if HB 222 did not pass there
would be adverse effects on businesses and families.
9:56:14 AM
PHILIP BROWER, SELF, NORTH SLOPE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. He relayed that his
partner had been a practicing nail technician for 8 years.
He asserted that she had determined through her experience
that 250 hours of coursework should be required. He said
that her classes had educated her about labor laws and
proper sanitation.
10:00:23 AM
JOHNA BEECH, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill.
10:01:19 AM
YEN NGUYEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of her bill. She relayed that her parents owned
a nail salon. She discussed the hardship her family endured
after immigrating to America. She discussed her parent's
business, and the difficulty that would ensue if HB 222 did
not pass.
10:04:19 AM
LISA MORENO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She discussed her work on a taskforce
that had focused on human trafficking in the state. She
shared that in her research she had never discovered a case
of human trafficking in the state that had been linked to a
nail salon. She noted that human trafficking could be
linked to many industries across the state. She believed
that it was bad policy to use the threat of human
trafficking as the reason to overregulate one industry. She
asserted that the current law would result in a loss of
industry jobs.
10:08:30 AM
DEBORAH LEE HARPER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of HB 222. She discussed the negative
impact of the additional training requirements imposed
after the passage of HB 131. She expounded on the
logistical and language barriers that manicurists faced
that had been exacerbated by HB 131. She emphasized that HB
222 would have an impact on approximately a thousand
Alaskan business owners and their families. She suggested
that nail technicians should take part in crafting new
legislation would speak to appropriate education and
regulation for their industry.
10:10:47 AM
ROSALYN WYCHE, HAIRDRESSER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to HB 222 in its current form. She
believed that HB 131 had not received proper vetting before
passage, and she feared that HB 222 was being equally
rushed through the process. She stressed the importance of
proper sanitation and disinfection practices in the
industry. She believed that the state could offer an
interpreter to help with the language barrier faced by some
manicurists and nail technicians. She understood that HB
131 had a deadline for licensing of 2019, with work
experience counting toward the 250 required training hours
providing the test was passed.
10:14:55 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited Kevin McKinley from the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers to offer closing thoughts.
KEVIN MCKINLEY, CHAIR, BOARD OF BARBERS & HAIRDRESSERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that 300 hours of
coursework was the national average in training for the
industry. He reiterated that he state was at the bottom of
the national average. He said that the average curriculum
included: nail art and design, manicures, pedicures,
acrylics, gels, wraps, and nail extensions; additionally,
the history of nail care; personal hygiene and public
health; safety, sterilization, and sanitation; nail care
chemicals; uses and technique applications; nailcare tools;
manicure apparatus uses; nail design and artistry; fabric
and sculpting procedures, light cured gels, nail
extensions, acrylic nail forms, nail product knowledge, and
bacteriology disorders of nails. He felt that practical
applications of education were absent from the current
legislation. He said that changes in the industry
necessitated more than 12 course hours of education in the
field. He offered some possible compromise language that
could be added to the legislation. He stressed the need for
substantial education course hours. He shared that the
industry was working at improving testing on the national
level, for both the issue of the language barrier and
content.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Mr. McKinley supported the
legislation.
Mr. McKinley responded that he supported the legislation
only in the sense that it would keep people employed. He
added that he did not believe the bill represented quality
legislation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected that a representative from
her office would contact Mr. McKinley offline to discuss
the issue further.
HB 222 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:21:56 AM
AT EASE
10:22:52 AM
RECONVENED